Utah is so red that there really is no need to concede a district to Matheson. This is my attempt to knock him out - his eastern Salt Lake City base is drawn into a district (in white) with Davis, Morgan, Rich, and Cache counties (all basically 70% or more McCain). I also put half of Weber in there, but made sure to leave out Ogden proper (which has a fair number of Hispanics and academic types). The portion of Weber that is in the district is probably close to 70% McCain then. If we assume that the SL City part of the district went 60-40 Obama and the Salt Lake County part was 50-50, then my rough calculations put the district at 62-63% McCain, compared with 58% previously. I suspect I'm underestimating the McCain percentage in the SLC areas (I put all Hispanic areas in CD1 and CD3 - in fact, CD2 is only 7% Hispanic) so that might be even higher.

Chaffetz and Bishop are still safe for the GOP, of course, as is the open seat. Bishop's district is technically contiguous, but to get from his home up north to the parts in Salt Lake or Utah counties without leaving the district, you have to go off-roading west of the lake.

Utah seems to have a certain tolerance for LDS Tory Dems, and Matheson will be very hard to take out, and if you try too hard, an LDS Tory Dem might knock off some incumbent Pubbie unexpectedly, or win an open seat if somebody vacates it. It has happened before - or nearly happened. So I would bear that in mind.

Matheson survived the biggest Republican wave in decades, so he's probably safe from redistricting. If the UT-GOP is smart, they'll create a district that's safe for Matheson (but not for a more liberal Dem if he retires) in SLC and three ultra-safe Republican districts in the rest of the state. If they get too greedy, they run the risk of creating two seats that are winnable for Dems if the national environment changes.

« Last Edit: December 12, 2010, 09:20:49 pm by Stranger in a strange land »

The only reason Matheson didn't lose this year was because the Republican nominee was a pathetic loser, and Matheson still only ended up winning by 4.5%. A decent candidate would've taken him out.

Here's what I did with Utah:

Splits up Matheson's share of Salt Lake County between a Happy Valley-based district and a district that stretches up to the north. Either way Matheson would be screwed, since he's not known to voters in the north part of the state, and the Happy Valley will not vote for a Democrat ever.

The only reason Matheson didn't lose this year was because the Republican nominee was a pathetic loser, and Matheson still only ended up winning by 4.5%. A decent candidate would've taken him out.

Splits up Matheson's share of Salt Lake County between a Happy Valley-based district and a district that stretches up to the north. Either way Matheson would be screwed, since he's not known to voters in the north part of the state, and the Happy Valley will not vote for a Democrat ever.

Agreed; that was basically the premise of my map. Although yours also has the quirk that Park City liberals will be represented by Jason Chaffetz.

The only reason Matheson didn't lose this year was because the Republican nominee was a pathetic loser, and Matheson still only ended up winning by 4.5%. A decent candidate would've taken him out.

Splits up Matheson's share of Salt Lake County between a Happy Valley-based district and a district that stretches up to the north. Either way Matheson would be screwed, since he's not known to voters in the north part of the state, and the Happy Valley will not vote for a Democrat ever.

Agreed; that was basically the premise of my map. Although yours also has the quirk that Park City liberals will be represented by Jason Chaffetz.

What was pathetic about Philpot, might I ask?

Park City is already represented by Rob Bishop, so it wouldn't be a huge change.

Anyway, Davis + Morgan + Weber + Box Elder + Cache + Rich is only a couple thousand people over exactly one district (when there are four districts), fixed when you drop North Salt Lake. Therefore, it will be difficult to justify tying part of the north around the west side of the lake where there are no roads again. Northern Utah is pretty parochial and will want its own district. That may defeat attempts at gerrymandering away Jim Matheson.

Philpot didn't raise much money (though he finally got some in the last couple months) and just seemed pretty hapless.

In other words, not much different from some people who won in similar districts.

Of course, the Utah legislature already tried to take out Matheson in 2000. But did so somewhat halfheartedly.

Logged

If I'm shown as having been active here recently it's either because I've been using the gallery, because I've been using the search engine looking up something from way back, or because I've been reading the most excellent UK by-elections thread again.

Utah seems to have a certain tolerance for LDS Tory Dems, and Matheson will be very hard to take out, and if you try too hard, an LDS Tory Dem might knock off some incumbent Pubbie unexpectedly, or win an open seat if somebody vacates it. It has happened before - or nearly happened. So I would bear that in mind.

Whatever district you draw for Matheson, the other three districts are going to be R+20ish anyway. (You can't weaken them too much or else Matheson will just run in one of them). The increased safety at the margin from making them a few points more Republican is pretty inconsequential.

Furthermore, you have to weigh up the risk that Matheson retires in the next ten years and the district you drew for him gets won by one of these "Tory Dems" you refer to it. I think the chance of this is higher than one of the other three districts going Democratic.

I suspect one reason why Matheson has hung on is his last name -- remember, his father was Governor in the 80s, so he probably still has some residual goodwill from that. Joe Smith the Mormon Democrat probably couldn't win an open seat in Utah unless it were drawn to pack in every Democrat in Salt Lake County.

I suspect one reason why Matheson has hung on is his last name -- remember, his father was Governor in the 80s, so he probably still has some residual goodwill from that. Joe Smith the Mormon Democrat probably couldn't win an open seat in Utah unless it were drawn to pack in every Democrat in Salt Lake County.

Matheson could be in a good spot there, but at the same time, trying to placate Dems might damage his statewide hopes of appealing to the state at-large.. so there is some good strategy involved in trying to confine his district.

Not sure where West Valley City and Sandy stand politically, since they flip between the 2nd and 3rd here.

Matheson could be in a good spot there, but at the same time, trying to placate Dems might damage his statewide hopes of appealing to the state at-large.. so there is some good strategy involved in trying to confine his district.

What do you mean? Surely he can't be THAT threatening that they'd give him an easier district so that he'd represent fractionally less swing voters statewide, immediately after a redistricting.

I doubt it will be drawn this way, but there is about as much population outside of the big 4 SLC/Ogden/Provo I-15 corridor counties for the rest of the state not along that corridor to get its own CD. By my math, Salt Lake, Weber, Davis and Utah counties combined have just about 11,000 residents more than the population necessary for 3 CDs. The rest of the state is about 11,000 residents short of the population necessary for a CD.

Just a casual look at the maps makes it seem like Matheson's current portion of Salt Lake County would be found in any of the east/west divisions. However, I'm sure he would be the heavy favorite in any of the maps. With a consolidated SLC district he is probably more vulnerable in a primary than in a general considering what he has weathered.

So, from a cursory glance, Matheson's to run in the yellow district - combining much of his downtown SLC territory with those rural parts of his district that he didn't do well in plus new rural territory that no Democrat has done well in for a lifetime? Why did they forget to excise the Navajo though?

Logged

If I'm shown as having been active here recently it's either because I've been using the gallery, because I've been using the search engine looking up something from way back, or because I've been reading the most excellent UK by-elections thread again.

So, from a cursory glance, Matheson's to run in the yellow district - combining much of his downtown SLC territory with those rural parts of his district that he didn't do well in plus new rural territory that no Democrat has done well in for a lifetime? Why did they forget to excise the Navajo though?

It looks like the only Dem territory in that district is Salt Lake City itself. One wonders what will happen in a primary there.

So, from a cursory glance, Matheson's to run in the yellow district - combining much of his downtown SLC territory with those rural parts of his district that he didn't do well in plus new rural territory that no Democrat has done well in for a lifetime? Why did they forget to excise the Navajo though?

It looks like the only Dem territory in that district is Salt Lake City itself. One wonders what will happen in a primary there.His base was cut into 3 districts.

SLC really is his base (though I would suppose that part was cut up too, don't know the geography enough to judge), there are just some rural pockets that Dems are competitive in, either historically or lately, and somehow they all (Indians, Italian miners, hippy skibunnies) ended up in his district. Which is odd given that it was drawn to get rid of him... but then again other rural areas in the district were and are superheavily Republican, and have more votes.Which makes me wonder why the Indians were left in.

Logged

If I'm shown as having been active here recently it's either because I've been using the gallery, because I've been using the search engine looking up something from way back, or because I've been reading the most excellent UK by-elections thread again.

So, from a cursory glance, Matheson's to run in the yellow district - combining much of his downtown SLC territory with those rural parts of his district that he didn't do well in plus new rural territory that no Democrat has done well in for a lifetime? Why did they forget to excise the Navajo though?

It looks like the only Dem territory in that district is Salt Lake City itself. One wonders what will happen in a primary there.His base was cut into 3 districts.

SLC really is his base (though I would suppose that part was cut up too, don't know the geography enough to judge), there are just some rural pockets that Dems are competitive in, either historically or lately, and somehow they all (Indians, Italian miners, hippy skibunnies) ended up in his district. Which is odd given that it was drawn to get rid of him... but then again other rural areas in the district were and are superheavily Republican, and have more votes.Which makes me wonder why the Indians were left in.

FWIW, the ski bunnies are not in Matheson's district, and I don't think they've ever been in his district.